As to why 65 million don’t stick with the house church, see my first post. Lazy, spoiled “Christians” who want to be fed pablum won’t hang out at a house church because at a house church gathering, you can’t be a nameless, faceless, pewsitter. Fake Christians won’t stay in an effective house church long. They’ll either become effective Christians or they’ll leave. As you can see…most of them leave.

As for the house church model in the Bible…what other model of ecclesiology do you see in the New Testament? Throughout Acts it’s very clear that the modus operandi was house church. Christianity was seriously persecuted from the mid-first century onward and so they couldn’t meet in set-aside buildings with a sign that said, “Y’all Come.” Indeed, the first church building was errected in Bethlehem in 313 by Contantine at the behest of his mother Helen…there were no church buildings before that. Indeed, Paul mentions as he writes his epistles that he’s writing to churches who meet in homes: Rom 16.5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2.

I’d invite you to take a read through Wolfgang Simson’s book “Houses that Change the World.” That will answer many of your questions. However, I repeat, the Lord uses our feeble attempts to carry out God’s work. If there was to be a preferred model, I suspect we’d have recieved a mandate, much as Moses did…and remember, his instructions were pretty specific right down to the measurements, materials, clothes to wear, and what worship was to look like. On the other hand, the church isn’t even told specifically how to do communion or baptism. We’re just told to do them. The same goes with being church. Our task is to make disciples…to make more of them and to make them more faithful. But there’s a surprising lack of instructions about how to do that. There’s not a single, “Thou shalt meet on Sundays at 11:00, sing three songs while standing…go to a Bible study on Wednesdays…etc.”

One of the things, IMHO, we Christians need to get a handle on is the difference between grace and law. We tend to get as tied up in our own “laws” as the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Jesus defined the church: “Where two or more are gathered in my name.” He gave us the commission: “Go and make disciples.” And he gave us the rubrics for accomplishing all that: “Love God and Love Neighbor.” That’s the church. It’s not what happens in a building on a particular day. Church is you. Church is me. Church is when I’m at Starbucks having coffee with an unchurched guy and sharing the gospel in a way he can hear me. It’s meeting for accountability with my accountability partner. And yes, it’s meeting on Sunday morning at the high-holy hour and watching everything going on up front.

The model of church is the model of being a Christian. It’s not a formula for a gathering. The gathering is just a tactic for furthering the cause of the Kingdom. It’s when that tactic becomes our only strategy that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket…and we lose 1 million members a year.

Since you mention “modeling the NT church” does it follow in your perspective that God has a revealed pattern (model) for churches or that pattern is a mere matter of preference? Would a revealed pattern be a superior one compared to a pattern created by men?

Certainly God can use any means or even no human means to accomplish his purposes.

Thanks, brother.

“70 million adults have experimented with house church.” Well, if it is so satisfying, why did 65 million not follow through? This figure excludes children, btw. We’re looking at close to 100 million people, I suppose.

Furthermore, Barna, has stated that scripture says “almost nothing” about any kind of church structure. Why therefore, could one, as yourself, presume that one type is better than another? (“The house church is the only model out there that truly models the NT church.”)

Please provide a few links about these 1,500 New Orleans house churches. That is a fascinating move of God, brothers.

Godspeed to all Kingdom workers!

Why do people leave the house church? Same reason the institutional church in the US is loosing 1 million people a year for the last five years (and those numbers don’t seem to be abating). The fact is most North American Christians are spoiled consumers. If going to church doesn’t “feed” them, they move on. Somehow most USAmericans in church (including house church) believe that it’s the institution’s job to cater to their percieved needs. Rather than getting involved in spiritual transformative activities, it’s much easier to visit the “traditional church” which is based on an Old Testament model of a priesthood who does everything for the congregation while the congregants passively watches. (And for those who are about to raise protests about the particpatory nature of the church, remember the Old Testament folks sang congregationally, gave their tithes and offerings, and even actively participated in their own sacrifices…which tends to be more than most in our “New Testament” versions of church today.) The house church is the only model out there that truly models the NT church. Does that make is superior? No. God can and continues to use virtually every model of church gatherings to bring a harvest. It’s just another model with its strengths and with its own set of weaknesses. They’re just different weaknesses than the traditional church.

The quote by Frank Viola is from one of his older works, though his observations about the transientness of an individual house church probably hasn’t changed much in North America, though there are more and more house churches that last longer. However, with the average USAmerican moving about once every seven years, it’s amazing that there are any house churches that last longer than that. In my case, I’ve just relocated from Seattle where I had to leave my house church (which I hosted) and come to Missouri where I’m having to start over. Am I starting over? Absolutely. IMHO, the house church far outstrips any other model for discipleship and accountability.

Finally, for some more recent statistics: Saddleback hired Curtis Sergeant, the Asia Coordinator for Church Planting with the International Mission Board to plant house churches in Southern California and in the New Orleans area following the hurricane. These house churches have no affiliation with Saddleback whatsoever, other than Curt’s salary is paid by Warren’s church. As of last September, they had started 1,500 house churches. Not bad for his first year. In addition, there are about 5 million USAmericans currently attending house churches who consider the HC their church home, and another 15 million who atttend HC, but consider it as a secondary (albeit important) worship opportunity.

From an essay called “Reflections on the House Church Movement” by author and long-time observer Frank Viola at his Present Testimony Website. ptmin.org:

The Short Shelf-Life of a House Church

It is quite telling to note that many modern house churches disintegrate over a brief time span. The typical house church has an average life span of six months to four years.

Within this six-to-four window, the church usually dissolves due to an irreconcilable split or an unresolved crisis. (The crisis is usually rooted in a high-drama power struggle, a sustained bickering over hobby-horse theology, or an unwillingness to forebear with intractable personalities.)

….

Granted, there are house churches that push past the four-year mark. But they are rare. It is still rarer to find a house church that has been in existence for over ten years. House churches that have been extant over twenty years are an endangered species. And house churches that have over twenty years of mileage are exotically scarce.

——————— end quote

Jesus, btw, invites us to deny ourselves – not to devote ourselves to seeking “satisfaction.”

Riddle me this. If house church folk are so satisfied, why do 80% (according to Barna who describes it as “having one foot in each camp.”) maintain their connection with an institutional church????

“Making disciples” – I like that!